We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter examines typical uses of referring expressions in spontaneous discourse by building on the concept of context of situation and considering how parameters of register establish a framework for reference variation. We formulate a way to capture distinctions between what we can claim about typical referring expressions which approximate spontaneous production as compared to typical referring expressions when more planning and revising are involved. Focussing specifically on mode of production, our account of spontaneous reference is first situated by contextual parameters, and then described using evidence from examples attested in spontaneous discourse. This spontaneous vs planned distinction is useful for the study of reference, but we argue against a strict division. Typical reference in spontaneous discourse is shown to rely on highly accessible and in focus referents, which makes it easier for acts of reference to be successful and which reduces the cognitive load of the speaker and addressee.
Aphasia recovery depends on neural reorganization, which can be enhanced by speech-language therapy and noninvasive brain stimulation. Several studies suggested that transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) associated with speech-language therapy may improve verbal performance evaluated by analytic tests, but none focused on spontaneous speech. We explored the effect of bihemispheric tDCS on spontaneous speech in patients with poststroke aphasia.
Methods:
In this multicentric controlled randomized cross-over double-blind study, we included 10 patients with poststroke aphasia (4 had aphasia >6 months and 6 with aphasia <6 months). We combined the sessions of speech-language therapy and bihemispheric tDCS (2 mA, 20 min). After three baseline speech evaluations (1/week), two different conditions were randomly consecutively proposed: active and sham tDCS over 3 weeks with 1 week of washout in between. The main outcome measure was the number of different nouns used in 2 min to answer the question “what is your job.”
Results:
There was no significant difference between conditions concerning the main outcome measure (p = .47) nor in the number of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, repetitions, blank ideas, ideas, utterances with grammatical errors or paraphasias used. Other cognitive functions (verbal working memory, neglect, or verbal fluency) were not significantly improved in the tDCS group. No adverse events occurred.
Conclusion:
Our results differed from previous studies using tDCS to improve naming in patients with poststroke aphasia possibly due to bihemispheric stimulation, rarely used previously. The duration of the rehabilitation period was short given the linguistic complexity of the measure. This negative result should be confirmed by larger studies with ecological measures.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.